Macon beacon. [volume] (Macon, Miss.) 1859-1995, 1887-12-10
IMPORTANT DECISION.
The Legislature the Protector OF Pub
lie Health and Morals,
with Authority to Designate What Is or
What IL Not a NuisaDce--The Kansas FRO
hibition Law Sustained by the U. >. SUI
hKelne Court.


What Is Not a Nuisapce--The Kansas Pro-
hibition Law Sustained by the U. >. SUI
treDe Court.
WAsfifseToS, Dec. 5.-A very Important
decision, and One likely to be far-reaching
in its consequences, was rendered in the
Supreme Court to-day in the so-called Ran
sas prohibition cases Of Mu3ler against
The State Of Kansas and The State OK
Kansas against Heboid aud others. The
Judgment of the Court was pronounced IN
long and elaborate opinion by Justice
harlan, who said: The general question
in each ease 10 whether the prohibition
statutes of Kansas are in conflict with
that. clause of the. Fourteenth Amend-
ment which !. provides that ''No State
shall Make or enforce anF law yt5ch
istall abffdRs the JSrfy fieges o. ifffnfuhssics
of citizens OF the United States, nor shall
any State deprive any person OF life, lib
erty or property without due process OF
law" That legislation by State prohibit
ing the manufacture within her limits OF
intoxicating liquors, to be there sold or
bartered for general nse as a beverage,
does not necessarily infringe any right,
privilege or immunity secured by the Con-
stitution Of the United States, is made clear
by the decisions of this court, rendered be-
fore and since the adoption of the Four
teenth Amendment. 1t is, however, con-
| tended that although the State may pro-
hiDit tho manufacture OF intoxicating
liquors for sale or barter within her limits
for general use az beverage, no conven-
ton or Legislature has the right, under
our form of Government. to prohibit any
citizen from manufacturing for his own
use or for export or storage, any article
Of food or drink not endangeringor or affect
| ing the rights Of others, the ar
gument made in support of the first
branch Of this proposition, briefly stated,
| is: That In the implied compact between
| the State and the citizen certain rights are
| reserved by the latter which are guaran'
! teed by the constitutional provisions for
the protection Of life liberty and property
| against deprivation without due process OF
| law and with which the State can not in
| terfere; that among those rights is that oR
manufacturing for onc's own use, either
| food or drink; that. while according TO the
doctrines of the communes, tho
| State may control the tastes, appetltes,
habits, dress, food and drink Of the
| citizen, our system Of Government, based
| upon the individuality and Intelligence OF
the people, does not claim to control him
except az to his conduct to others, leav-
ing him the sole judge as 10 all that only
affects himself With reference to the
assertion that the prohibition of the manu-
facture and sale of liquor depriyes liquor
dealers Of their property without due pro-
cess Of law, the court says that all property,
under our form Of government, is subject to
the obligation that it shall not be used so
as to injuriously affect the rights of the
community and thereby become q
nuisance. The State OF Kansas had L
right to prohibit the liquor traffic. 1t did
not thereby take away the property of the
brewers. 1t simply abated nuisance.
The property is not taken away from its
owners; they are only prohibited from
using it for a specific purpose, which the
Legislature declared to be injurious to the
| communitv